Ecosystem Management
Earth’s ecosystems are under threat. Twenty per cent of Earth’s land cover has been significantly degraded by human activity
and 6O per cent of the planet’s assessed ecosystems are now damaged or threatened. The irrefutable pattern is one of natural
resource overexploitation while simultaneously creating more waste than ecosystems can process.
A rich variety of plants and animals on the Hoang Lien Mountains give way to incredible montane landscapes and managed terrace fields in Sapa district, Lao Cai Province, northwest Vietnam. INTRODUCTION
Ecosystems are, by definition, resilient and
adaptable to change—even to abrupt change.
This makes the current worldwide collapse
of ecosystem function all the more dramatic:
Human activities over the last 50 years have
accelerated rates of change, and introduced
artificial connections and substances, to such an
extent that natural systems are losing their ability to
adjust. The stresses, including habitat destruction,
species loss, pollution, and climate change,
combine to make ecological breakdown more
widespread, more severe, and more likely (HomerDixon 2007). Worse, as multiple stresses unfold
simultaneously, major ecosystems are reaching
critical thresholds beyond which they will no longer
be able to recover from further disturbance.
Science cannot yet predict the precise
thresholds for each ecosystem, but our ability to
understand cumulative and non-linear change
has improved dramatically, offering new insights
into how far an ecosystem can be pushed before
irreversible changes occur (Willis and others 2007).
Crucially, these advances clarify the numerous
links between long-term ecosystem health and
human wellbeing. It has become clear that
ecosystem management, environmental services,
and socio-economic development must all be
considered together.
In the face of climate change and mounting
water vulnerabilities, 2008’s unstable energy prices
and food price crisis illustrate the global scope
Source: Graham Ford
and cascading effects of pressures we exert on
ecosystems. These events further underscore the
vulnerabilities inherent in the global community’s
current doctrines of perpetual economic growth
and demonstrate that conventional, highly
compartmentalized ecosystem management
methods are not working.
In 2008, voices from all corners of society called
for dramatic change. Many endorsed significant
long-term measures to incorporate the ecosystem
approach for management of agriculture and
conservation, with a new focus on integrated
management systems, in which the needs of
humans and the needs of nature are both taken
into account, for the benefit of each.
Ecosystem Management
1
Box 1: A red hot priority: The world’s
mammals in crisis
Of the 5487 recognized mammal species in the world, more
than half are declining in numbers and more than 20 per cent
are threatened with extinction, according to the Red List Index
2008. The Red List, an ongoing global inventory undertaken
by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is
widely recognized as the best assessment of distribution and
conservation status of Earth’s plant and animal species.
While the exact threat is hard to quantify, the situation is
worst for marine mammal species, with 36 per cent at
risk of extinction from pollution, changing climate, and
encounters with fishing nets and cargo vessels. Since
the last Red List Index assessment on mammal species
in 1996, scientists have documented 700 species
not covered previously, including 349 new species
discovered mostly in Madagascar and the Amazon.
Scientists expect that more species have yet to be
discovered in regions such as the Congo Basin.
Threatened mammals tend to concentrate in rich
ecosystems with high occurrence of endemic species—
ecosystems under extreme pressure from human
activities. The most vulnerable areas include South and
Southeast Asia, the tropical Andes, the Cameroonian
Highlands, the Albertine Rift in Africa, and the Western
Ghats in India. Deforestation and agricultural expansion
have left animals living on increasingly fragmented and
smaller patches of land.
Meanwhile, protected areas may no longer offer a
safe haven to species: The impact of tourism on
local economies tends to attract settlement around
conservation areas by people looking for employment.
These communities then turn to timber harvesting, bushmeat hunting, and land clearing by fires—all activities
that ultimately lead to higher rates of species loss in the
protected sectors.
Source: Miller and others 2006, Schipper and others 2008,
Wittemyer and others 2008, IUCN 2008
Severe habitat degradation, disease, and reduced water availability have brought the Grevy’s zebra to near extinction with
750 adult animals remaining in Kenya and Ethiopia.
Source: Jason Jabbour/ UNEP
2
UNEP YEAR BOOK 2009
CHANGING ECOSYSTEMS
The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
reported a substantial and largely irreversible
loss in the diversity of life on Earth, along with
the deterioration of more than 60 per cent of all
ecosystem services assessed (MA 2005) (Box 1).
The sobering reality inspired a surge in scientific
research and ideas. It prompted calls for a serious
rethinking of our management approaches,
seeking methods that better deal with the
mounting risks and challenges to ecosystems.
The stakes are high. If humans are to survive on
this planet with a minimally acceptable, universal
quality of life, we must manage and utilize our
ecological assets in far more efficient and creative
ways (Steiner 2008).
Irrefutable evidence of degradation
All ecosystems are undergoing change, but
some transitions are more dramatic than others.
Certainly one of the most visible and significant
ecosystem changes is the widespread degradation
and conversion of tropical and sub-tropical
ecosystems (Figure 1). Increasing demands for
food and other agricultural products has led to
the intensification of agricultural production and
the drastic expansion of land under cultivation
(Yadvinder and others 2008). Today, farmland
covers nearly a quarter of the planet’s surface.
Entire forest systems have effectively disappeared
in at least 25 countries and have declined by 90
per cent in another 29 countries (Dietz and Henry
2008). This destruction continues at staggering
rates. Such abrupt and comprehensive changes
to ecosystems result in significant stress on
ecological processes and biogeochemical cycles,
with further adverse implications for both regional
and global ecosystem services that derive directly
from the health of basic ecological functions. This
knock-on effect through conversion of tropical and
sub-tropical ecosystems leads to critical losses
in watershed protection, diminished soil integrity,
increased erosion, disappearance of biodiversity,
decrease in carbon sequestration capacity, and
deterioration of regional and local air quality (Scherr
and McNeely 2008, Hazell and Wood 2008).
Less visible but just as significant human-induced
changes are underway in marine and coastal
ecosystems. Coral reefs, intertidal zones, estuaries,
coastal aquaculture operations, and seagrass beds
have all experienced intense pollution, degradation,
destruction, and overexploitation. The resulting
decline of aquatic ecosystems has essentially forced
the world’s marine fisheries into a state of stagnation
for nearly a decade (World Bank and FAO 2008).
Since the onset of industrial fishing in the 1960s,
the total biomass of large, commercially-targeted
marine fish species has declined by a staggering 90
per cent (Halpern and others 2008, MA 2005).
The need for action on fisheries is urgent. Over
one billion people, many among the world’s most
vulnerable, depend on fish as their primary source of
protein. According to a 2008 study commissioned
by the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), the exploitation and near
depletion of the ocean’s most valuable fish stocks
have caused an annual net loss in the value of
global marine fisheries in the order of US$50 billion.
The excessive build-up of redundant fishing fleet
capacity, the deployment and mismanagement
of increasingly powerful fishing technologies, and
increasing pollution and habitat loss are to blame
(World Bank and FAO 2008).
Rising food prices, the impending energy crisis,
and increasing impacts of climate change all have
the potential to put further pressure on marine
ecosystems. The immediate and paramount need
is to improve the resilience of those ecosystems,
through a series of institutional and regulatory
reforms. Recommendations for concerted national
and international reforms are designed to increase
investment in and to empower poor small-scale
fishing communities. These would include the
elimination of counterproductive subsidies and
perverse incentives, as well as supporting initiatives
to certify sustainable fisheries and new measures to
eliminate illegal fishing (World Bank and FAO 2008).
Shifting ecosystems
Recent studies have revealed migration and some
expansion of certain ecosystem types as they
respond to changing climatic and biogeochemical
conditions (Silva and others 2008). The conversion
of Arctic tundra to shrubland has been observed
as temperatures rise during recent years. The
process involves warmer winter temperatures
when a few shrubs can stabilize a snow layer, the
snow layer insulates the soil, and the local soil
-10
Figure 1: Per cent of available area converted by 2050
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 %
Non-linear
changes
and
emerging ecosystems
The
frequency and accelerated rates at
60
70occurence
80 %
which
environmental
conditions are transforming
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 %
Mediterranean forests, woodland, and
scrub broadleaf and mixed forests
Temperate
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 %
Percentage
of
potential
area
of
vegetated
landscapes—and
the unexpected
Temperate forests, steppes, and woodland
Tropical and sub-tropical dry broadleaf forests
Mediterranean forests, woodland, and scrub
ecosystems estimated to have
Mediterranean forests, woodland, and scrub
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests
manner in which existing natural systems are
Flooded grasslands and savannas
been
converted
1950,
conTemperate forests, steppes, and woodland
Tropical
and
sub-tropical by
grasslands,
savannas,
Temperate forests, steppes, and woodland
Tropical and sub-tropical dry broadleaf
forests
responding—raise important questions about
and shrublands
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests Flooded grasslands and savannas verted between 1950 and 1990,
Tropical and sub-tropical coniferous forests
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests
our understanding of ecosystem thresholds.
and
will have been converted
Tropical and sub-tropical grasslands,
savannas,
Tropical and sub-tropical dry broadleaf forests
and shrublands
Deserts
between
1990 and 2050 under
Tropical and sub-tropical dry broadleaf forests
What we are learning about accelerated, abrupt,
Flooded grasslands and savannas
Tropical and sub-tropical coniferous
forests grasslands and shrublands
Montane
Tropical and sub-tropical grasslands, savannas,
Millennium Ecosystem AssessFlooded grasslands and savannas
unexpected, and potentially irreversible ecosystem
and shrublands
Deserts
Tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf forests
ment
scenarios. The vast majority
Tropical and sub-tropical grasslands, savannas,
Tropical and sub-tropical coniferous forests
Montane grasslands and shrublands
changes leads to serious uncertainties about the
Temperate coniferous forests
and shrublands
of conversions are for agricultural
Deserts
Tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf
forests
Boreal forests
future of those ecosystems, the consequences of
purposes.
Tropical and sub-tropical coniferous forests
Montane grasslands and shrublands
Temperate coniferous forests
Tundra
our interventions, and the implications for human
Source: Millennium Ecosystem
Tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleafBoreal
forestsforests
Deserts
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 %
Assessment
wellbeing.
Temperate coniferous forests
Tundra
Montane grasslands and shrublands
Boreal forests
%
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Such
70
80 evidence
has prompted a renewed
Tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf forests
Tundra
investment
in
monitoring
and early warning
-10
0
10
20
30
40 by
50 1950
60
70
80 %
Temperate coniferous forests
Loss between 1950 and 1990
Projected loss by 2050
Loss
systems, and highlights the value of alternative
Boreal forests
options. Already these investigations
Loss between 1950 and 1990
Projectedmanagement
loss by 2050
Loss by 1950
Tundra
have expanded our ability to explain and predict
Loss between
1950 and
Projected loss by 2050
%
-10
0 Loss10by 1950
20
30
40
50
60
70
801990
some of the drivers and positive feedback
mechanisms that influence non-linear ecosystem
Scientists had long thought that the boundaries
change (Dakos and others 2008, Scheffer and
microbes that remain active for longer periods
others 2006, Lenton and others 2008, Tallis and
under the warmer conditions produce the nutrients between savannas and gallery forests, two distinct
Loss between 1950 and 1990
loss by 2050
Loss by 1950
andProjected
separate
ecosystems, were effectively fixed due
others 2008).
the shrubs
need to thrive. This
process fosters
to sharp contrasts in soil properties such as water
Observations of non-linear changes and
the colonization of tundra by more shrubs (Strum
content, nutrients, aeration, and acidity (Furley 1992,
expectation of their increasing occurrence have
and others 2005). The resulting ecosystem shift
Beerling and Osborne 2006). In 2008, new evidence
encouraged concepts of emerging ecosystems.
has forced caribou populations out of traditional
from central Brazil revealed a surprising migration
These are assemblages of species within a given
grazing areas in search of the lichens and grasses
of gallery forests into surrounding savanna regions.
ecosystem that are documented in previously
normally found on tundra (Tape and others 2006).
It appears that climatic changes can initiate such
unrecognized combinations and abundances
In 2008 new evidence showed that while warmer
ecosystem migration and that subsequent feedback
under new ecological conditions (Milton 2003,
Arctic temperatures encourage earlier availability
mechanisms including nutrient accumulation and fire
Seastedt and others 2008, Silva and others 2008).
of caribou grazing resources, caribou reproductive
suppression may push the expansion process further The emerging ecosystems concept borrows
cycles are not advancing with resource availability.
still (Figure 2) (Silva and others 2008).
from the idea that as ecosystems pass through
This has significant repercussions on caribou
reproductive success (Post and others 2008).
Figure 2: Vegetative regions and ecological transitions in Brazil
In the northern Ural Mountains of Russia, the
warming summer climate and the doubling of
Map of Brazil showing major vegetative regions and areas of
winter precipitation have altered the composition,
ecological transition. Complex factors associated with changing
structure, and growth forms of Siberian larch (Devi
climate and subsequent soil, moisture, and nutrient conditions
and others 2008). As mature forests, these 10-20
have given to an increase in these ecological transition regions
metre conifers typically grow in a mix of single- and
and the expansion of certain vegetative biomes including gallery
forests into savannas.
multi-stemmed tree clusters. But a recent study
found that 90 per cent of trees emerging after
Vegetation class
1950 were single-stemmed, a characteristic of less
Other vegetation
Woodland savanna (Cerrado)
mature forests. The researchers concluded that
Amazon / Atlantic forest
Shrubland (Caatinga)
this tree generation largely reflects the expansion
Ecological transitions
Water
in both space and time of a new forest. This foresttundra ecosystem may already have advanced
Source: Màrton Bàlint and Jason Jabbour/ UNEP; adapted from Heckenberger
0 250 500
1 000
as far as 20 to 60 metres up the mountains in the
and others 2008, Silva and others 2008
Kilometres
past century (Devi and others 2008).
Mediterranean forests, woodland, and scrub
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Temperate forests, steppes, and woodland
50
Ecosystem Management
3
various states of vulnerability and resilience, they
evolve—adapting to disturbances differently, and
restructuring themselves as a function of both
the state of the system and the spatial scale at
which the disturbance occurs. Accelerated rates of
change from human-induced forces have pushed
some ecosystems towards extinction. But these
forces have also propelled some ecosystems
past their historical range of variability into states
that are relatively stable despite being new (Sax
and Gains 2008). As emerging ecosystems and
their enabling conditions evolve, management
approaches must be able to analyse the costs
incurred and benefits offered. Study of the current
state of ecosystem functioning is essential, but
management of dynamic systems must also
focus on likely trajectories or predictions of future
changes to anticipate opportunities for disaster
prevention. Emerging ecosystems require novel
management approaches, including a more
deliberate collaboration between scientists and
managers in developing methods and measures
for achieving short- and long-term objectives
(Seastedt and others 2008).
In the United States of America’s Yellowstone
National Park, new insights on the cascading
ecological changes occurring in a warmer park
have prompted managers and scientists to rethink
traditional assumptions and strategies. An invasive
thistle species, long established in North America,
was initially thought to be thriving in the park
because of changing climate. Researchers recently
discovered the thistle’s success is part of a larger
feedback loop in which a simultaneous expansion
of pocket gophers has helped the plant spread.
The gophers create ideal growing conditions for
their thistle food source by churning surface soil as
they tunnel. More thistles feed more gophers and,
at the same time, grizzly bear populations have
stabilized due to an ample supply of both (Robbins
2008). Consequently, park efforts to control the
thistle have been significantly reduced.
Should an emerging ecosystem persist, it
could offer new valuable ecosystem products
and services. The extent that these new systems
can contribute to future diversity, renewal, and
resilience will require careful research. A key
goal for the future of ecosystem management
is to maximize beneficial changes and reduce
4
UNEP YEAR BOOK 2009
A shrimp farmer in Apalachicola, Florida, USA, describes the drastic
decline of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the increasing
challenges that fishers face. Source: Tara Thompson
less advantageous elements, while tracking the
processes and persistence of both benefits and
costs (Hobbs and others 2008).
ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELLBEING
Healthy ecosystems, and the goods and services
they provide, are the foundations of survival for all
societies. Given current consumption levels in the
industrialized world and the rapidly accelerating
material aspirations in developing countries,
those foundations are threatened. The problems
associated with environmental degradation and
agricultural growth alone will incur substantial
costs to future generations in the form of threats
to human and ecosystem health (Hazell and
Wood 2008, Levin and others 2008, RRI 2008).
Externalities of climate change and economic
globalization are accelerating the approach
of critical thresholds for already threatened
ecosystem health at local and global scales. The
potential for catastrophic mistakes grows.
The prospects for biofuels
It is difficult to think of an environmental issue that
attracted more controversy in 2008 than biofuels.
Sweeping rhetoric has both championed biofuels
as a renewable, low-carbon energy solution
and condemned their production as a threat to
human and environmental wellbeing. For many,
the juxtaposition of ‘food versus fuel’ captures the
central tension of the biofuel industry.
Dramatic increases in grain prices throughout
much of 2008 brought food security and
vulnerability issues to the fore. Experts disagreed
over the extent to which biofuel production
contributed to these price increases, with perhaps
the highest estimate of 75 per cent responsibility
attributed to a combination of diversion of grains
into biofuels, farmers setting aside land for energy
crops, and financial speculation (Chakrabortty
2008). Others saw a less clear relationship
between biofuels and food prices, contending
that biofuels may actually be able to reduce local
food shortages and raise the incomes of the
world’s most impoverished—if proper policies
are implemented (Müller and others 2008).
Looking beyond a direct trade-off between food
and energy, another perspective sees land use
management as the lens for assessing the linked
implications of biofuels, biodiversity, ecosystem
integrity, and food.
Approaches such as smallholder production
for local consumption stand in contrast to the
dominant model of large-scale agribusiness biofuel
production. As well, such approaches represent an
important ongoing experiment within the broader
effort to promote rural energy self-sufficiency,
livelihood opportunities, and environmental integrity
in the developing world.
Using an eco-agriculture approach, smallholders
producing biodiesel or vegetable oil for local use
can achieve conservation benefits including crop
diversity and restoration of degraded land (Milder
and others 2008). This strategy has the potential to
enhance local energy security, increase household
incomes, and generate new economic opportunities
that rely on a small but steady energy supply (Ejigu
2008). Such small-scale biofuel projects are now
underway in several countries.
Large, monoculture plantations invite
environmental damages related to intensive
chemical use, biodiversity loss, soil degradation,
wildlife displacement, and water consumption
(Table 1). They can also have significant social
repercussions in terms of livelihoods and human
rights. In places where the land tenure situation
is insecure or contested, an increase in biofuel
production can cause poorer groups to lose crucial
access to land (Cotula and others 2008). Still,
many developing countries see an opportunity for
economic development in the growing international
biofuel trade.
Table 1: Biofuels and water projections for 2030
Biofuel
production
(billion litres) Crop
Irrigated
water
needed (km3) for biofuels
US/Canada 51.3
Maize
36.8
Brazil Sugarcane 2.5
34.5
Percentage
of irrigation
water used
on biofuels
20
8
EU 23.0
Rapeseed
0.5
1
China 17.7
Maize
35.1
7
India 9.1
Sugarcane 29.1
5
South Africa 1.8
Sugarcane 5.1
30
Indonesia Sugarcane 3.9
7
0.8
Sources: Molden 2008, Serageldin and Masood 2008
Research attempts to analyse the full costs
and benefits of various biofuel production
processes, including the implications of large
scale land-use change, predict the loss of stored
carbon, and raise the possibility of biofuels as a
net contributor to climate change (Fargione and
others 2008). A new study using a worldwide
agricultural model to estimate emissions from
land-use change reveals that corn-based ethanol
would increase greenhouse gas emissions by
nearly 100 per cent over 30 years and would
continue emitting for 167 years (Searchinger and
others 2008). As initial enthusiasm over biofuels
is tempered by concerns about the social and
environmental trade-offs in places where energy
crops would be grown, several governments with
fuel-blending mandates have recently revisited
their targets or considered adding conditions
related to sustainable sourcing.
The development of a global standard
outlining sustainability principles and decision
making criteria will be an important step towards
appropriate policy decisions when applied in
combination with enhanced bioenergy mapping
tools and an understanding of local preconditions
and needs. Small-scale biofuel projects designed
to promote rural energy self-sufficiency in the
developing world pose a creative challenge to
the dominant scenario of biofuels for international
transport needs (UN-Energy 2007). Whether
these efforts will translate into an effective
strategy for meeting rural energy needs while
enhancing livelihoods and ecosystem integrity will
remain an important question in the months and
years to come.
Cycle of poverty and environmental degradation
Environmental degradation has created uncertainty
and risk across the globe. Yet the greatest burden
continues to fall on the most impoverished
regions, and on marginalized and indigenous
communities (Levin and others 2008). If current
trends persist, the disruptive effects of climate
and ecosystem change will continue to impair
the wellbeing of at least 2 billion of the world’s
human population and to diminish their prospects
for a better future (See Climate Change, Chapter
Three) (WRI 2008). And yet, attempts to mitigate
the current global economic downturn have cost
considerably more than the amounts allocated for
official development assistance (See Environmental
Governance, Chapter Six) (Ban 2008).
Poverty and the environment are inextricably
linked. It is well accepted that ecosystem
degradation and natural resource depletion are
exacerbated by socio-demographic factors,
particularly when combined with poverty (WRI
2008, UN 2008). The co-incidence of rapid
population growth and environmental degradation
has emphasized the importance of understanding
the complex linkages among societies, ecosystems,
and governance. While the overall changes
that humans have made to ecosystems have
contributed to substantial overall benefits in human
wellbeing and economic development, these gains
are not equitably distributed: They have come at the
serious and growing cost of displaced degradation,
increased risks of non-linear changes, and
exacerbation of poverty among the most vulnerable
populations (Holden and others 2006, WRI 2008,
Hazell and Wood 2008).
For most people in developing countries,
especially those living in rural areas, functioning
natural environments form an essential part of their
livelihood strategies. A balanced relationship between
people and functioning ecosystems is crucial when
addressing sustainable ecosystem management and
poverty reduction (IAASTD 2008, WWF 2008, UNEP
2007). Nature-based income routinely accounts for
more than half of the total income stream for the
world’s rural poor (WRI 2008). Reliable estimates
suggest that 90 per cent of the rural poor depend
on forests for at least a portion of their income (WRI
2005). In rural Africa, small-scale agriculture, the
backbone of developing country economies, is the
principal source of income for over 90 per cent of
people (UN 2008). As a function of these critical
dependencies, impoverished regions and rural
indigenous communities have consistently suffered
disproportionately from degradation and changing
climatic and ecosystem conditions.
The proportion of rural people in poverty
rises markedly in locations that are marginal for
agricultural productivity, remote from services, and
prone to natural disasters. Under these conditions,
people are often compelled to over-exploit
adjacent resources to survive (Hazell and Wood
2008). The UN Food and Agriculture Organization
estimates that 7.8 million hectares of forest are
lost each year to subsistence hillside farming and
shifting cultivation as a result of declining yields
on traditional agricultural land (FAO 2008, FAO
2008b). Pressures exerted through low-productivity
agricultural practices, overgrazing, slash and burn
activities, soil-mining, deforestation, and expansion
into forested areas threaten not only the ecological
balances of an increasingly fragile natural resource
base, but also livelihoods and wellbeing of the
communities that depend on these ecosystems.
The result is a negative feedback loop, in which
poverty contributes to ecosystem degradation
and ecosystem degradation contributes to the
perpetuation and intensification of poverty (Wade
and others 2008).
Mainstreaming ecosystem management into
poverty reduction
Ecosystem approaches to alleviating poverty have
received substantial attention in recent years.
Integrating environmental issues and ecosystem
management with poverty reduction strategies
has become central to sustainable development
programmes (UNDP 2007, WRI 2008, SvadlenakGomez and others 2007). Given the huge disparity
between average incomes and those of the
rural poor, as well as the important relationships
these populations have with the land and natural
ecosystems, development strategies stand little
chance of success if they do not take into account
the circumstances, knowledge, capabilities, and
environmental needs of the rural poor.
With a deliberate shift to a strong governance
regime, ecosystem management could become a
powerful model for nature-based enterprise that
Ecosystem Management
5
delivers continuing economic and social benefits
to the poor as it improves the natural resource
base, and that sustains those ecosystems as they
provide essential services at regional and global
scales (WRI 2008). So far, the poorest and most
vulnerable segments of society lack the necessary
means and empowerment to utilize nature-based
enterprise to improve their wellbeing. Even where
resources are abundant, revenues are often
appropriated by elites, leaving rural communities
and their local ecosystems worse off (Gardiner
2008, FAO 2007).
Development in poor rural communities requires
innovative strategies and processes that promote
local interests while building local capacity. Meeting
such challenges was inherent in the Millennium
Development Goals. But momentum towards
those goals is faltering.
The need for action is urgent. We face a global
economic crisis and a food security crisis, both
of uncertain magnitude and duration. In the
meantime, climate change has become more
apparent—usually in the background but more
frequently as a phenomenon that cannot be
ignored. These developments will directly affect our
efforts to reduce poverty: The economic slowdown
will diminish the incomes of the poor; the food
crisis will increase the number of hungry people in
the world and push millions more into poverty; and
climate change will have a disproportionate impact
on the poor. The need to address these concerns,
pressing as they are, must not be allowed to
detract from our long-term efforts to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals (UNDESA 2008).
Women agricultural workers harvesting tea leaves at a tea plantation
in West Java, Indonesia. Source: M. Edwards/ Still Pictures
6
UNEP YEAR BOOK 2009
NEW MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS
Ecosystem management practices continue
to evolve as new science emerges, leading
to re-consideration of fundamental principles,
values, and the specific nature of management
interventions. The underlying problem is ultimately
quite simple: Management approaches that do
not respond to, and adapt faster than, changing
ecosystems will invariably fail—as will the societies
that are content with such mismanagement.
While the challenge is daunting, new advances
offer hope. The closer we come to achieving an
accurate, holistic picture of the distribution of
the ecosystem costs, benefits, and trade-offs of
our actions, the better positioned we will be to
formulate responses.
Degradation, conservation, and productivity
Over the next four decades the amount of available
cropland per person is projected to drop to
less than 0.1 hectares, due to biological limits,
requiring an increase in agricultural production
that is unattainable through conventional means
(Montgomery 2008). A sense of urgency has been
growing, in response to the universal decline of soil
quality that results from various systems of intensive
agriculture.The problem of soil degradation, which
has affected all but 16 per cent of the world’s
croplands, presents serious implications for
agricultural productivity and broader ecosystem
services, including biodiversity (Hazell and Wood
2008).
An emerging body of scientific research focuses
on spatially integrated management approaches to
agriculture. This would involve a move away from
the conventional model of land-use segregation,
in which some areas are dedicated wholesale to
food production, while others are set aside for
conservation or other uses (Scherr and McNeely,
Holden and others 2008). For decades, biodiversity
conservation and agricultural productivity were
thought to be incompatible and mutually exclusive
pursuits. But practitioners of eco-agriculture
challenge these notions. Their approach transforms
large-scale, high-input monoculture plantations
at the farm level to a more diverse, low-input, and
integrated system at the landscape level.
Given the necessary management, policy, and
governance structures, these new eco-agricutural
land-use mosaics could support biodiversity while
meeting increasing demands for wider ecosystem
services and achieving critical goals of agricultural
sustainability (Scherr and McNeely 2008). By
treating food production as just one of many
possible ecosystem services, eco-agriculture in a
sense encourages landholders to cultivate clean
air, sweet water, rich soil, and biological diversity,
as well as food (Box 2).
Forms of eco-agriculture have been practiced
in the past and at impressive scales: Terra Preta
soils of central Amazonia exhibit approximately
three times more soil organic matter, nitrogen,
and phosphorus and 70 times more charcoal
compared to adjacent soils. The Terra Preta
soils were generated by pre-Columbian native
populations by adding large amounts of charred
residues, organic wastes, excrement, and
bones. Large-scale generation and utilization of
Terra Preta soils would decrease the pressure
on primary forests that are currently extensively
cleared for agricultural use. This would maintain
biodiversity while mitigating both land degradation
and climate change and, if done properly, can
alleviate waste and sanitation problems in some
communities (Glaser 2007).
Scaling up financial incentives
The Fourth Global Environment Outlook Report
called attention to the critical role the environment
can play in enabling development and human
wellbeing. It also rendered a compelling argument
that Earth’s ecosystems and the goods and
services they provide offer tremendous economic
opportunities valued at trillions of dollars (UNEP
2007). This conclusion reinforces the growing
movement to incorporate inventories of our
natural capital and nature-based assets into
our efforts to develop and execute ecosystem
management.
In recent years, interest in and scientific research
on the assessment of ecosystem services,
particularly biophysical valuation, has grown
markedly (Cowling 2008). Valuation of ecosystem
services has created a basis for innovative
financial interventions and economic incentives as
powerful instruments that can help regulate the
use of ecosystem goods and services and even
redistribute benefit flows.
Box 2: Semi-natural and cultural landscapes: Reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Conservation of biodiversity and landscapes is often framed as a ‘human versus nature’ tradeoff:
Pristine, untouched nature is considered optimal, while human influence in the ecosystem is
considered unwanted intrusion. Conservation programs that limit human impact on natural
ecosystems are important, but conservation of semi-natural landscapes is also necessary for both
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Historically, there are many semi-natural landscapes developed in association with societies’
traditional land use over long periods of time. These semi-natural ecosystems, or cultural
landscapes, are associated with traditional livelihood activities. The most common cultural
landscape types, managed meadows and forests, are kept in a stable but artificial state
through activities such as animal grazing, fodder collection, forest floor litter clearance,
and harvesting of forest resources. These activities alter important environmental features
of the landscape, including moisture levels, light penetration, temperature regimes, and
nutrient cycles. Many such sites are high in biodiversity and, more importantly, contain
a higher percentage of rare and endangered species than either monoculture plantations or
natural ecosystems on the margins of cultivated areas.
Cultural landscapes were traditionally managed for the provision of a particular ecosystem
service. The grasslands of Europe, for example, have been managed for grazing and fodder
production for domesticated livestock. Indigenous peoples of the Americas used controlled
burns in forests to create wooded meadows for deer to graze. In North America, sugar bush
woodlots are maintained to produce maple syrup. In Central Asia, the natural fruit and nut forests
have been managed to enhance the production of these important foodstuffs.
Most ecosystems in Europe are managed or semi-managed. However, these semi-natural
ecosystems have declined in both quality and quantity in the past century. In Finland, for
example, traditionally managed forest and meadows are the most threatened habitats,
with the majority of these landscapes now critically endangered. At the same time, nearly
one-third of all endangered species in Finland are found primarily in these threatened and
endangered grazed forests and meadows.
In letting these landscapes go, we lose not only important habitat for species, but also
landscapes that have high cultural value. These landscapes have irreplaceable aesthetic
and historical value by providing cultural ecosystem services. Semi-natural and cultural
landscape have inspired great painters, musicians, and poets and help to form peoples’
cultural identities. The aesthetic value of cultural landscapes is evident in the importance
they have in tourism and in attracting new residents from urban areas.
Coon Creek Watershed in southwest Wisconsin was once one of the most heavily eroded regions of
the United States. Advances in soil and farmland restoration have revitalized both form and function of
this impressive landscape. Source: Jim Richardson
Among the possibilities, a rapidly evolving
instrument called ‘payment for ecosystem
services’ (PES) offers great potential. The
objective is to ensure that individuals, groups,
and communities are compensated for their
efforts in protecting critical ecosystem functions.
This approach offers the necessary institutional
platforms for poor and marginalized populations
to engage in good ecosystem management
while they claim economic and other benefits
that emerge (WRI 2008). New initiatives to
scale up PES arrangements offer promise for
achieving both ecological and social progress
without detracting from the primary objective of
balancing conservation and development (Tallis
2008, Svadlenak-Gomez 2008). Through use of
rigorous monitoring and appropriate valuation for
both ecology and human wellbeing, PES could
provide an important remedy for the tendency
to shift burdens of ecosytem damages onto the
vulnerable, poor, and future generations (Schultz
2008, WRI 2008, Hazell and Wood 2008).
What does this mean for future management of ecosystems, when human impact is felt
in every ecosystem on Earth? Although humans have been responsible for massive
environmental changes and large-scale extinctions, our valuable cultural landscapes show
that people can manage ecosystems sustainably. Although we need wild places, too, it may
be time to revisit the past to learn how to manage for the future.
Sources: Wittemyer and others 2008, Lindborg and others 2008, Furura and others 2008, MOE 2007, Raunio
and others 2008, Kareiva 2007, Merchant 2005, Schama 1995
Compensated reduction of deforestation
The consensus among scientists and experts is that
conserving tropical forests represents one of the
central ecosystem management priorities of our time.
Yet forest destruction continues at the staggering rate
of 13 million hectares a year, an area equivalent to
half the UK. Attributed mainly to land conversion and
agricultural expansion, tropical forest loss accounts
for an estimated 17 per cent of all greenhouse gas
emissions, making it a major cause of global warming
(Ceccon and Miramontes 2008, IPCC 2007). Until
recently, tropical forests’ critical role in influencing and
potentially moderating our changing climate was only
conjecture: It is now observed reality.
This recognition has given rise to the concept
of ‘compensated reduction’. Reducing emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD)
promotes avoided deforestation as eligible
activities for participating in the international
mandatory carbon market. Carbon offset
payments would provide compensation to
encourage developing countries to reduce and
stabilize national deforestation below a previously
determined historical level (See Environmental
Governance, Chapter Six).
Enthusiastic proponents speculate that REDD offers
a crucial set of new incentives for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions that could simultaneously accomplish
several ancillary benefits: biodiversity conservation,
watershed protection, capacity building in tropical
forest nations, and poverty alleviation for rural
communities. In principle, compensated reductions
should enhance the welfare of the poor through the
provision of stable and long-term revenue-sharing
arrangements and non-financial benefit flows to rural
communities. In practice, however, these systems
could pose new risks to already vulnerable populations
including restricted access to land, conflict over
resources, centralization of power, and distortion
effects in local economic systems (Preskett and others
2008). Although existing mechanism proposals for
REDD emphasize the delivery of pro-poor and social
ancillary benefits, most appear to leave achievement of
these ends to chance.
Ecosystem Management
7
From food crisis to agricultural renaissance
In spring 2008 precipitous increases in staple
food prices, which threatened the lives of tens of
millions, provoked demonstrations and food riots
in 37 countries (Gidley 2008). These events may
signal the arrival of an era in which longstanding
relative inequalities have reached a breaking point
for the global poor.
It has become clear that ecosystem management
and food security are intimately linked. The surplus
living resources and ecological margin of error in
many regions are gone. As societies struggle over
diminishing tracts of fertile and irrigable land—and
over traditional fishing grounds—the accelerating
threats of changing climate, ecosystem collapse,
and population stress have converged in a way
that calls the very future of food availability into
question (Box 3). The debates are vigorous and
highly contentious, but the issue of food security
created global political panic in 2008 and will no
doubt continue to occupy much of the international
agenda for years to come.
There is a growing consensus within the
international community that our current global
agricultural system needs to be reorganized and
rationalized; some are calling for a new agricultural
revolution (Montgomery 2008, Wade and others
2008). While the issues at play are complex,
involving diverse geopolitical and agro-ecological
circumstances, the underlying distinctions are not
hard to identify: Agricultural intensification through
increased emphasis on chemical and technological
inputs—or a move toward an integrated ecoagriculture approach at nested scales (Hazell and
Wood 2008).
There is no denying the achievements of past
agricultural intensification in the mid to late 20th
century. The economic and social advances that
characterize India, China, and much of Latin
America today are, to a significant degree, due to
that agricultural intensification. The problem is that
while the global agricultural system that emerged is
undeniably more productive, in a mid 20th century
sense, its practice has accelerated soil erosion,
soil salination, nitrification of water bodies, and
overuse of synthetic pesticides with subsequent
loss of natural pest control and other ecosystem
services affecting agricultural sustainability. As well,
our agricultural systems’ distribution flaws make
8
UNEP YEAR BOOK 2009
Box 3: Avoiding marine ecosystem collapse through rights-based catch shares
Global fisheries have exerted enormous demands on the ecosystem goods and services of the world’s oceans for decades, and this
is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. A recent study, which synthesized 17 global data sets of various human-induced drivers
of ecological change, used nested scale spatial modeling to map the global extent of impacts on marine ecosystems from human
activities.The findings were grim, revealing that humans have adversely influenced all marine ecosystems examined, with 41 per cent
affected by more than one human-induced driver.
As commercial fisheries across the globe descend towards widespread collapse, due to systematic over-exploitation and
cumulative mismanagement, calls for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management are being raised. Incremental progress
has been made in the improvement of stock assessments and spatial indicators of ecosystem status, which in turn have led
to more scientifically credible catch limits for some species. However, many of the inherent problems of overfishing have been
institutionalized through poor fisheries governance and a systemic absence of resource stewardship. This lack of stewardship
has marginalized many artisanal fishers who may be forced to turn to other marine-based economic activities.
The movement to use an ecosystem approach has been paralleled by efforts to stimulate reward-based management strategies
and regulatory incentives for promoting stewardship. A new study from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)
is advocating an innovative and controversial solution called ‘rights-based catch shares’. This approach offers incentives for
promoting ecologically responsible behavior by guaranteeing individual fishers a fixed portion of the total allowable catch. By
granting fishers a share in—and responsibility for—the natural
resource, regulatory and management objectives including
sustainability are likely to be more closely aligned with the economic
incentives of the resource users. Similar to corporate stock shares,
catch shares can be bought and sold and are subject to the market
signals of supply and demand, thereby creating a stewardship
incentive. As fisheries are better managed and fish populations
increase, so do the value of the catch shares.
The UCSB study, which analyzed data from 11 135 fisheries
worldwide, found a striking correlation between fisheries that
implemented catch-share reforms and a reduction, or even reversal,
of the trend towards collapse. The study posits that well-designed
catch share programmes assigning secure resource rights to
fishers reduces the probability of collapse by 9.0 to 13.7 per cent.
In addition to addressing overfishing and ecosystem performance,
various catch-based programs in New Zealand, Canada, Mexico,
Chile, and the USA have shown an increased ability for individuals
and fishing communities to improve their livelihoods.
Artisanal fishers on the Zambezi River cast a net for today’s
catch. Source: David Gough/ IRIN
whole populations vulnerable to supply shocks as
we witnessed in 2008 (Surowiecki 2008). Despite
higher crop yields in many countries, we still face
vast, persistent, and widening gaps in the ability of
societies to feed themselves, much less to protect
future resources and ecosystem services (Hazell
and Wood 2008). For most developing countries,
entrenched and deepening poverty stems from
the fact that millions of small-scale farmers,
many of whom are women, are simply unable to
grow enough food to sustain their families, their
communities, or their countries (AGRA 2008,
Ngongi 2008) (Box 4). The efficiencies derived
from the economy of scale in intensified agricultural
systems do not apply at the scale of these families
and communities (Dossani 2008).
Source: Costello and others 2008, Festa and others 2008, Halpern and others
2008, Mutsert and others 2008
As the human population continues to grow and
the pool of land available for agricultural production
shrinks, the costs and efforts required to avert
a worst-case global food crisis will inevitably
increase for developing countries. A new land
grab may already be underway in Africa, with
rich governments and corporations competing
for some of the last remaining cheap land in the
world, hoping to secure their own long-term food
or biofuel supplies. In 2008, a number of countries,
including Sudan, Ethiopia, and Madagascar, were
entangled in wholesale land deals, the details of
which have been largely concealed, causing many
to speculate on whether these transactions have
built-in safeguards for local populations (Borger
2008). Another new trend involves industrial food
Tunisia
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
0
10
20
30
Box 4: The role of women in agriculture in developing countries
A woman with her child prepares for planting at the Mshikamano
women’s group-farm in Bagamoyo, Tanzania where approximately
30 women share a small plot to raise fruits and vegetables. The
socially constructed gender relations of agriculture are important
dynamics in existing global farming systems, and a formidable
challenge to ongoing agricultural restructuring. In most developing
countries the percentage of rural women involved in agricultural
production and post-harvest activities is disproportionately higher
than men, with the proportion of agricultural management services
skewed in the opposite direction. With the proliferation of exportoriented irrigated farming at low pay, the demand for female labour is
increasing further. These developments have brought some benefits,
but the situation for rural women worldwide must be improved. If
they are shut out from higher paying agricultural roles, they will
continue to face deterioration of health, working conditions, access
to education, and rights to land and natural resources.
Source: Tara Thompson
production in one country, cultivated by another.
Sudan is exporting wheat for Saudi Arabia;
sorghum for camels in the United Arab Emirates;
and wheat, beans, potatoes, onions, tomatoes,
oranges, and bananas for Jordan. Sudan supplies
the land while its neighbors supply the money, the
management, the science, and the equipment
(Gettleman 2008).
A number of institutions and research bodies
are pressing for a complete rethink of the role of
agriculture in achieving equitable development and
sustainability. Increasingly, they are advocating
for approaches to agriculture that recognize
the importance of multiple ecosystem services.
An extensive intergovernmental assessment of
agriculture knowledge, science, and technology,
released in 2008, advocates for a radical move
away from technologically-based production
enhancements to a focus on the needs of small
farmers in diverse ecosystems, particularly in
areas of high vulnerability to ecosystem change.
Recognizing that the poor have benefited the
least from increased productivity, the study argues
for improving rural livelihoods, empowering
marginalized stakeholders, enhancing ecosystem
services, integrating diverse knowledge, and
providing more equitable market access for the
poor (IAASTD 2008).
In November 2008, the UN’s Food and
Agricultural Organization called for an immediate
plan of action on a new ‘World Agricultural Order’
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Agricultural
work carried
out by women
Benin
Female
extension
staff
Congo
Morocco
Namibia
Sudan
Tunisia
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 %
Source:
IAASTD 2008
to ensure that production meets rising demand
affected by human activity. The most widespread
in the face of climate change, while safeguarding
human impacts include extensive deforestation,
the goals of sustainable ecosystem management
Agricultural land conversion and fragmentation, desertification,
carried the disruption of freshwater systems, the pollution
(FAO 2008). It proposed a new governancework
system
out by women
for world food security and agricultural trade
and over-exploitation of marine ecosystems,
Female
that offers farmers, in developed and developing
excessive nutrient loading, severe changes in
extension
staff
countries alike, the means of earning a decent
species distribution, and loss of biodiversity.
living (Diouf 2008).
Given humankind’s cumulative influence on
In this new World Agricultural Order, can we
Earth’s ecological systems and the consequent
learn from those experiences with high-input,
disruption of vital processes—especially carbon,
high-yield agriculture to define a rational ecowater, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling—it is
agricultural system? While increased chemical
too optimistic to describe future prospects for the
and technological inputs may keep the agricultural
planet’s ecosystems as precarious and uncertain.
production system going over the short term, it
Rather than continue with business-as-usual
becomes progressively more difficult to sustain
practices that allow cascades of environmental
(See Harmful Substances and Hazardous
and social damage to result from ecosystem
Waste, Chapter Two) (Montgomery 2008, Pretty
mismanagement, we should be designing
2008). Sooner or later, the existing realities will
ecosystem management systems that minimize
compel those responsible for the new agricultural
wasted resources, maximize community selfparadigm to reach a balance between production
sufficiencies, and optimize access to emerging
and ecosystem integrity. If we can establish the
opportunities among the most vulnerable
balance sooner, we will avoid the inevitable shocks
populations to build their resilience. Approaching
and panics that result from business-as-usual
ecosystem management from an industrial
practices (Montgomery 2008).
perspective has increased productivity, but at a
high cost to the quality of soils, water, atmosphere,
and ecological health. Based on insights revealed
Conclusion
by 2005’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
As the first decade of the 21st century draws to
new approaches under consideration suggest that
an end, virtually all ecosystems on the planet have
productivity can be decoupled from environmental
been significantly modified in both structure and
degradation. Imminent critical thresholds require
function (Seastedt and others 2008). To a greater
that this decoupling proceed at once.
or lesser extent, they have all been adversely
Ecosystem Management
9
40
50
Hobbs, P., Sayre, K. and Gupta, R. (2008). The Role of Conservation Agriculture in Sustainable Agriculture. Royal Society Philosophical Transactions 363(1491), 543-555
AGRA (2008). Revitalising Small-Scale Farming Across Africa. Alliance for a Green Revolution
in Africa, 2008. http://www.agra-alliance.org/ [Accessed 20 November 2008]
Holden, S., Otsuka, K. and Place, F. (2008). Emerging Land Markets in Africa – Implications
for Poverty, Equity and Efficiency. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, D.C.
Ban, K.M. (2008). A difficult time for world economy, global solidarity more important than
ever. Secretary-General Press Release for European Development Day in Strasbourg, November 15, 2008 http://www.unbrussels.org/SS_SM_11929.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2008]
Holden, S., Barrett, T. and Hagos, F. (2006). Food-for-Work for Poverty Reduction and
Promotion of Sustainable Land Use: Can it Work? Environment and Development Economics
11, 15-38
Beerling, D.J. and Osborne, C.P. (2006). The origin of the savanna biome. Global Change
Biology (12), 2023-2031
Homer-Dixon, T. (2007). The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of
Civilization. Alfred A. Knopf and Random House, Canada
Borger, J. (2008). Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply.
The Guardian 22 November 2008
IAASTD (2008). Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Ceccon, E. and Miramontes, O. (2008) Reversing deforestation? Bioenenergy and society in
two Brazilian models. Ecological Economics 67, 311-317
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Schultz, L., Folke, C. and Olsson, P. (2008). Enhancing ecosystem management through
social-ecological inventories: lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environmental
Conservation 34(2), 140-152
Chakrabortty, A. (2008). Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis: Internal World Bank study
delivers blow to plant energy drive. The Guardian, July 4, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
[Accessed 24 November 2008]
IUCN (2008). Triggering Behavioral Changes - Bringing Values and Principles of Sustainability
into Education. International Union for Conservation of Nature - World Conservation Congress
Proceedings, Barcelona 2008
Searchinger, T. Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S.,
Hayes, D. and Yu, T. (2008). Land-Use Change Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases. Science (319), 1238
Costello, C. Gaines, S.D. and Lynham, J. (2008). Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries
Collapse? Science 321, 1678-1681
IUCN (2008b). Red List Reveals World’s Mammals in Crisis
http://www.vector1media.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4725&pop=
1&page=0&Itemid=133 [Accessed 24 November 2008]
Seastedt, T.R., Hobbs, R.J. and Suding, K.N. (2008). Management of Novel Ecosystems: Are
Novel Approaches Required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(10), 547-553
Cotula, L., Dyer, N. and Vermeulen, S. (2008). Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and
poor people’s access to land. IIED, London
Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonald, R. and Bouche, T. (2007). Domesticated Nature: Shaping
landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316(5833): 1866-1869
Cowling, M.R., Egoh, B., Knight, T.A., O’Farrell, J.P., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, J.D.,
Welz, A. and Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. PNAS 105(28), 9483-9488
Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S. and Schellnhuber,
H.J. (2008). Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., PNAS
105(6), 1786–1793
Dakos, V., Scheffer, M., Van Nes, E.H., Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V. and Held, H. (2008). Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. PNAS
105(38), 14308-14312
Levin, K., McDermott, C. and Cashore, B. (2008). The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives
pass a ‘dual effectiveness’ test? International Forestry Review 10(3), 538-49
Devi, N., Hagedorn, F., Moiseev, P., Bugman, H., Shiyatov, S., Mazepa, V. and Rigling, A.
(2008). Expanding forests and changing growth forms of Siberian larch at the Polar Urals
treeline during the 20th century. Global Change Biology (14): 1581-1591
Lindborg, R., Bengtsson, J. and Berg, A. (2008). A landscape perspective on conservation of
semi-natural grasslands. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 125(1-4) 213-222
Dietz, T. and Henry, A.D. (2008). Context and the commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., PNAS
105(36), 13189–13190
Diouf, J. (2008). FAO Reform: Director-General Diouf Calls for New World Agricultural Order.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Press Release, November 19, 2008
http://www.climate-l.org/2008/11/fao-reform-dire.html [Accessed 21 November 2008]
Dossani, S. (2008). Human Need and Corporate Greed, Understanding the Call for a New
Green Revolution in Africa. Africa Action Special Guest Paper Series, Africa Action, August
2008
Ejigu, M. (2008). Toward energy and livelihoods security in Africa: Smallholder production and
processing of bioenergy as a strategy. Natural Resources Forum (32), 152-162
FAO (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
FAO (2008). Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required. Report
of High-level Conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and
Bioenergy 3-5 June, Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
FAO (2008b). Global Forests Resources Assessment. Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations. Rome, Italy
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land Clearing and the
Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science (319), 1235-1238
MA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Merchant, C. (2005). Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture. Routledge,
New York
Milder, J.C., McNeely, J.A., Shames, S.A. and Scherr, S.J. (2008). Biofuels and Ecoagriculture: Can bioenergy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural
livelihoods? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6(2), 105-121
Miller, R.M., Rodríguez, J.P., Aniskowicz-Fowler, T., Bambaradeniya, C., Boles, R., Eaton,
M.A., Gärdenfors, U., Keller, V., Molur, S., Walker, S. and Pollock, C. (2006). Extinction Risk
and Conservation Priorities. Science 313, 441
Milton, S.J. (2003). Emerging Ecosystems - A Washing-Stone for Ecologists, Economists and
Sociologists? South African Journal of Science 99: 404-406
MOE (Government of Japan) (2007). Cabinet Decision November 27, 2008. Outline of the
Third Biodiversity Strategy for Japan. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan.
http://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/attach/071210-e.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2008]
Molden, D. (2008). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture. Earthscan/ International Water Management Institute
Montgomery, R.D. (2008). Why we need Another Agricultural Revolution. Dirt: The Erosion of
Civilizations. In Print. University of California Press
Festa, D., Regas, D. and Boomhower, J. (2008). Sharing the Catch, Conserving the Fish.
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2008, 75-84
Müller, A., Schmidhuber, J., Hoogeveen, J. and Steduto, P. (2008). Some insights in the effect
of growing bio-energy demand on global food security and natural resources. Water Policy 10
Supplement 1: 83-94
Furley, P.A. (1992). Edaphic changes at the forest–savanna boundary with particular reference
to the neotropics. In: Nature and Dynamics of Forest–Savanna Boundaries (ed. Furley, P.A),
91-117. Chapman & Hall, London
Mutsert, de K, Cowan, J.H., Essington, T.E. and Hilborn, R. (2008). Reanalyses of Golf of
Mexico fisheries data: Landings can be misleading in assessments of fisheries and fisheries
ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. PNAS 105(7), 2740-2744
Furuta, N., Iwatsuki, K., Nishida, H. and Kawamichi. M.(eds) (2008). Conserving Nature: A
Japanese Perspective. Biodiversity Network Japan. 79p.
http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/cop-09/bnj-nature-en.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2008]
Ngongi, N. (2008). Policy Implications of High Food Prices for Africa. Alliance for a Green
Revoluation in Africa.
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2007/ar07essay03.pdf [Accessed 10 December 2008]
Gardiner, B. (2008). Paying For Forests. GLOBE Forestry Dialogue, September 2008
Post, E., Pedersen,C., Wilmers, C. and Forchhammer, M.C. (2008). Warming, plant phenology and the spatial dimension of trophic mismatch for large herbivores. Proc. R. Soc. B 275,
2005-2013
Garnett, T.S., Sayer, J. and Du Toit, J. (2007). Improving the Effectiveness of Interventions to Balance Conservation and Development: A Conceptual Framework. Ecology and Society 12(1): 2
Gettleman, J. (2008). Darfur Withers as Sudan Sells Food. New York Times August 10, 2008
Preskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E., Edwards, G. and Brown, J. (2008). Making
REDD Work for the Poor. Draft final report prepared for the Poverty Environment Partnership
Gidley, R. (2008). Where’s the global food crisis taking us? Reuters
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/37559/print [Accessed 21 October 2008]
Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence. Royal Society
Philosophical Transactions 363(1491), 447-465
Glaser, B. (2007). Prehistorically modified soils of central Amazonia: a model for sustainable
agriculture in the twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 187–196 doi:10.1098/
rstb.2006.1978
Raunio, A., Schulman, A. and Kontula, T. (eds). (2008). Assessment of Threatened Habitats in
Finland: Parts I & II. The Finnish Environment 8/2008. Vammala Kirjapaino OY, Vammala. 264
pp. (part I), 572 pp. (part II)
Halpern, B.S.,Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F.,
Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P.,
Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. and Watson, R. (2008). A Global Map of
Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science 319, 948-952
Robbins, J. (2008). In a Warmer Yellowstone Park, a Shifting Environmental Balance. The New
York Times, March 18, 2008
Hazell, P. and Wood, S. (2008). Drivers of change in global agriculture.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363, 495-515
10
Sax, D.F. and S.D. Gains. (2008). Species invasions and extinctions: The future of native
biodiversity on islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., PNAS 105: 11490-11487
Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory. Knopf, New York
References
UNEP YEAR BOOK 2009
RRI (2008). Seeing People through the Trees: Scaling Up Efforts to Advance Rights and Address Poverty, Conflict and Climate Change. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC
Scheffer, M., Brovkin, V. and Cox, P.M. (2006). Positive feedback between global warming
and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett.
33: L10702.
Scherr, S.J. and McNeely, J.A. (eds.) (2008). Biodiversity Conservation and Agricultural
Sustainability: Towards a New Paradigm of ‘Ecoagriculture’ Landscapes. Royal Society
Philosophical Transactions 363(1491), 477-494
Schipper, et al. (2008). The Status of the World’s Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity,
Threat, and Knowledge, Science 322, 225-230
Serageldin, E. and Masood, I. (2008). Water for a growing planet. Draft report – Bibliotheca
Alexandrina, Alexandria, Egypt
Shiva, V. (2008). Soil not Oil. South End Press. Cambridge, MA
Silva, L.C.R., Sternberg, L., Haridasan, M., Hoffmann, W.A., Miralles-Wilhelm, F. and Franco,
A.C. (2008). Expansion of Gallery Forests into Brazilian Savannas. Global Change Biology
14, 2108-2118
Steiner, A. (2008). Nature-Based Enterprises Can Help Rural Poor Adapt to Environmental Threats. UNEP Executive-Director Press Release for IUCN World Conservation
Congress,Barcelona, Spain October 8, 2008
Strum, M., Schimel, J., Michaelson, G., Welker, J.M., Oberbauer, S.F., Liston, G.E., Fahnestock, J. and Romanovsky, V.E. (2005). Winter Biological Processes Could Help Convert
Arctic Tundra to Shrubland. BioScience 55(1), 17-18
Surowiecki, J. (2008). The Perils of Efficiency. The New Yorker, 46
Svadlenak-Gomez, K., Clements, T., Foley, C., Kazakov, N., Miquelle, D. and Stenhouse, R.
(2007). Paying for Results: The WCS Experience with Direct Incentives for Conservation. In
Redford K.H. and Fearn E. (eds.)
Tape, K., Sturm, M. and C. Racine. (2006). The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern
Alaska and the Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology 12, 686-702, doi: 10.1111/j.13562486.2006.01128.x
Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. and Chang, A. (2008) An ecosystem services framework to
support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci PNAS
105(28), 9457-9464
Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Costanza, R., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Portela,
R. (2007). Global Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience 57(10),
868–873
UN (2008). Sustainable Development Report on Africa: Five-Year Review of the Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development Outcomes in Africa. United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 2008.
UNDESA (2008). The Millenium Development Goals Report 2008.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/The%20Millennium%20Development%20Goals%20
Report%202008.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2008]
UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008, Fighting Climate Change: Human
Solidarity in a Divided World. United Nations Development Programme, New York
UNEP (2007). Global Environmental Outlook 4: Environment for Development. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi
Wade, R.W., Gurr, G.M. and Wratten, S.W. (2008). Ecological Restoration of Farmland:
Progress and Prospects. Royal Society Philosophical Transactions 363(1492), 831-847
Willis, K.J., Arau, M.B., Bennett, K.D., Figueroa-Rangel, B., Froyd, C.A., and Myers, N.
(2007). How can a knowledge of the past help to conserve the future? Biodiversity conservation and the relevance of long-term ecological studies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 175–186
doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1977
Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Burton, A.C.O. and Brashares, J.S. (2008). Accelerated
Human Population Growth at Protected Area Edges. Science 321, 123-126
World Bank and FAO (2008). The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries
Reform. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. The World Bank, Washington DC.
WRI (2008). World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor.
World Resources Institute in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme,
United Nations Environment Programme and World Bank, Washington, DC
WRI (2005).The Wealth of the Poor. Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. World Resources
Institute in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations
Environment Programme and World Bank, Washington, DC
WWF (2008). Living Planet Report 2008. World Wildlife Foundation, Geneva
Yadvinder, M., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W. and Nobre, C.A.. (2008). Climate
Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon. Science 11, 319(5860), 169-172